Propaganda – Page 4 – Rolling Doughnut

Press Release: An Instrument of Distortion

I loosely follow a rule in my blogging that I don’t bother with press releases. They’re skewed to push the angle of whoever is paying the bill. It might be worth picking out the propaganda from a press release to find the facts, but I can usually achieve that with less effort by going to news sources to make a point. (Of course, most news sources reporting on circumcision are filled with propaganda, too.) Generally a press release is only good for demonstrating propaganda. This recent press release is a good example:

Hospitals in states where Medicaid does not pay for routine male circumcision are only about half as likely to perform the procedure, and this disparity could lead to an increased risk of HIV infection among lower-income children later in life, according to a UCLA AIDS Institute study.

The first half is fact. The second half is conjecture. News, then propaganda. The HIV-circumcision studies researched the effect of voluntary, adult male circumcision in reducing the risk of female-to-male HIV transmission from heterosexual intercourse. It is inaccurate to draw the conclusion that the foreskin puts men at higher risk of HIV. Unprotected sex with HIV-infected partners increases an individual’s risk of HIV infection. The male must first engage in that specific activity to become infected. Focusing on the foreskin distracts from efforts to reduce such behavior.

But that doesn’t sell the way fear sells.

But recent clinical trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda have revealed that male circumcision can reduce a man’s risk of becoming infected with HIV from a female partner by 55 to 76 percent. In June 2007, the AAP began reviewing its stance on the procedure.

By now you know what was left out of that summary, right? When public health officials talk about voluntary, adult male circumcision, they never mean voluntary, adult. Never.

As the press release so helpfully theorizes in its opening line:

Lack of coverage puts low-income children at higher risk of HIV infection

Think of the (poor) children. That’s not very original. It has the added bonus of being inaccurate. Are these children sexually active? Specifically for the age of the children discussed in this press release, the answer is no for 100% of them. They are not at risk of (female-to-male) sexually-transmitted HIV infection. But those necessary, contradictory details must be ignored. Think of the (poor) children.

That is how propaganda is done.

**********

Not to let an opportunity go to push for a collective response to an individual problem, the Family Planning Cooperative Purchasing Program helpfully regurgitates this press release, with the necessary bits of speculation helpfully emphasized in bold. An example:

In addition to the overall lower circumcision rates, the researchers found that the more Hispanics a hospital served, the fewer circumcisions the hospital performed. For Hispanic parents, the circumcision decision was about more than simply cost, since male Hispanic infants were unlikely to receive the procedure even in states in which it was fully covered by Medicaid.

What point is FPCPP trying to make with that emphasis, given the sentence that follows it? The only justification I infer is an implicit suggestion that we need to encourage Hispanics to “Americanize”. That wouldn’t surprise me because it’s the typical, mindless support for non-therapeutic genital mutilation in America. And FPCPP files this under “Public Policy”, among other categories. See above re: voluntary and adult. If it’s not that, I’m stumped.

**********

You and I, through a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, paid for this research. Mental Health? With mission creep like that, who could possibly worry about government-run health care?

However, this raises the question of national health care and the future of routine infant male circumcision in America. I’ve long held that the former would not end the latter. The political environment for defending non-therapeutic circumcision is too strong, as evidenced by studies like the one leading to the above press release. No politician is going to say that parents can’t circumcise, despite the clear constitutional flaw in our status quo.

Ending public funding isn’t sufficient. The state should not pay for mutilation, but fails to end the practice. Poor parents pay for the surgery out-of-pocket. They complain about it, citing the potential benefits as an excuse for why Someone Else should pay, but they pay the cost anyway. Their sons are not protected by their state’s lack of Medicaid reimbursement. And ending government reimbursement doesn’t always end government reimbursement, as Minnesota’s politically-motivated solution showed.

Still, I need to have a think on my position. I won’t suddenly support government-run health care, but I should explore the nuances further.

How to Require Extra Rules for Opponents

Steven Pearlstein began his Friday Washington Post column with this line:

To most Americans, the language on Page 52 of the report of the House Committee on Appropriations would have seemed perfectly sensible.

He’s picking a fight, but he intends to pretend that he’s not fighting because only the other side is fighting what is supposed to be “perfectly sensible”. Given that President Obama uses this tactic repeatedly to push the deficit spending bill, Pearlstein is not alone.

He continues:

The report spelled out the committee’s rationale for including $1.1 billion for something called “comparative effectiveness research” in the massive economic stimulus bill. For those of not steeped in the argot of health policy, that’s research done by doctors and statisticians who troll through large number of patient records to determine, for any particular disease, which treatments work best.

“By knowing what works best and presenting this information more broadly to patients and healthcare professionals, those [treatments] that are most effective . . . will be utilized, while those that are found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive will no longer be prescribed.”

Those of us Pearlstein attempts to discredit are those who will ask the important question. It doesn’t matter that comparative effectiveness research already occurs. Who will make those decisions? Stating without support that “nearly all experts agree [the effort] is a necessary first step to reforming a broken health-care system” does not dismiss the question.

After describing the opposition as a right-wing brushfire, he continues:

It’s not that these various groups have no reason for concern. If comparative effectiveness research is done badly, or if the results are used simply as an excuse to deny insurance coverage for all expensive treatments, then there would be plenty of reason to get out the pitchforks and storm Capitol Hill. And there are surely examples from Britain and other countries of people being denied access to the latest drugs and procedures, including some that are significantly more effective than other treatments.

So, we’re in agreement, right? What were we arguing about?

What the critics don’t have, however, is any shred of evidence that the professionals who do this research are incompetent or have any but the best intentions in trying to figure out what treatments are the most effective for patients. …

This is a bait-and-switch. We’re not arguing about the ability or integrity of the researchers. No one said anything about that. The issue is who will make decisions resulting from the research. Pearlstein’s desire to obfuscate the issue suggests he has an intention he doesn’t want fully known. It’s obvious since he spoke of experts he did not quote, but he gives it away as the paragraph continues:

… There is no reason to believe that once this clinical research is completed, it cannot be used in a disciplined, scientific way by physicians, economists and medical ethicists to determine whether there are drugs, tests, surgical procedures or devices that simply don’t deliver enough benefit to justify their cost. …

Physicians? Sure. Many could use a lesson about cost-benefit mixed with ethics. It’s easy to fall into a pattern of inertia, despite evidence. But where do economists come into this? Again, who is making the decision? I don’t think he means economists at insurance companies or parents as economic actors. As Pearlstein continues:

… And there is no reason we cannot set up reasonable procedures, overseen by independent health professionals, to protect patients who can demonstrate a special need for a treatment that is not normally cost-effective.

We finally get there. Patients need procedures to demonstrate a special need for “not normally cost-effective treatments”. When not trying to pretend that is enlightened, it’s called rationing. Regardless of an individual’s willingness to pay, someone else must decide if it’s cost-effective rather than first asking if the treatment is effective, followed by the question of how much it costs? That’s government-run health care, despite Pearlstein’s pretense that it is not.

Remember: Good, cheap, and universal. We can only have two. Yet, we actually try for three, despite Pearlstein reciting the tired lies that America denies “vital medical services to the 40 million Americans without health insurance”. Lies, plural, because we do not deny care to the poor in the manner Pearlstein implies, nor are there 40 million Americans without insurance because of it’s cost. He’s advocating services without visible sacrifice. Why would anyone think the goal of this is government-run health care?

Australia Imports American Nonsense

Arguing in favor of circumcising male infant to reduce their risk of HIV infection is flawed thinking, even in places like Africa. It’s exceptionally ridiculous when looking at the extent to which pro-circumcision advocates bypass logic. From a recent Reader’s Digest Australia article on male circumcision, included in the section labeled “Verdict”, this quote:

“‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ is the understandable attitude of many Australians,” says [University of Melbourne] Professor Roger Short. Yet he questions this wisdom. “Australia is blessed with a low prevalence of HIV infection, but parents need to remember their children will encounter high rates in many countries they visit.”

How does he know male individuals will visit other countries? How does he know that those countries will have high rates of HIV infection? How does he know male individuals will have vaginal intercourse with HIV infected women? Where logic demands a different conclusion, Professor Short relies on propaganda. He began with his conclusion and grasped for assumptions to build around that to defend what is objectively indefensible.

**********

That’s unsurprising because the article is structured to reach one conclusion. Among the arguments offered in favor of circumcision, the article includes “Appearance”:

Research by Professor Marvel Williamson from the School of Nursing at Oklahoma City University found women prefer the look of a circumcised penis. “Generally women said it is more sexually appealing,” says Williamson. “Ninety per cent of women said it looks sexier and 85% said it’s nicer to touch.”

This is a non-medical argument used to excuse surgery on a non-consenting, healthy child. It’s also a subjective criterion that will be irrelevant to the 10% and 15% of women, respectively, who disagree with the majority. It will also be irrelevant if the male is gay. This conclusion also demands that we accept an external locus of control for all male sexuality. What the society wants matters more than what the individual wants for himself. Human rights belong to the individual, so we must reject all of this.

But look at what the article explicitly ignored. It’s obvious by the location of the research. A quick scan of the study reveals the omission.

This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised men.

Yeah, noting that the conclusion concerns American women might help Australian parents, except Australian statistics look nothing like American statistics in 2009. Also, this assumes that the mother’s preferences – or the father’s opinion about his own penis – matters. We’re not assuming that because it doesn’t matter. Professor Williamson incorrectly thinks it does, as shown in the design of her study:

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, …

Are we really so stupid that a parent’s opinion on the sexual aesthetics of a child’s genitals is considered a valid reason for surgical alteration? I want to believe we are smarter, but the evidence is very clear that parents can and do use this excuse. That position is indefensible. Remember that all tastes and preferences are subjective, unique to each individual. The choice on whether or not to allow the subjective tastes and preferences of his future sexual partners to influence his decision regarding cultural, medically unnecessary circumcision must be left to him. Ethically, parents may offer proxy consent to circumcision only when medical need exists, and then only when less invasive solutions are insufficient.

Is God an economist?

Charles Munger has a column in this morning’s Washington Post. I’d use an insulting adjective to preface “column” if I could think of one awful enough to accurately depict his nonsense.

Our situation is dire. Moderate booms and busts are inevitable in free-market capitalism. But a boom-bust cycle as gross as the one that caused our present misery is dangerous, and recurrences should be prevented. The country is understandably depressed — mired in issues involving fiscal stimulus, which is needed, and improvements in bank strength. A key question: Should we opt for even more pain now to gain a better future? For instance, should we create new controls to stamp out much sin and folly and thus dampen future booms? The answer is yes.

Sin. That’s how you know you need to go no further. But we must, just to know where it will lead because central planners never understand that “imposing” is not a synonym for “restoring”.

Sensible reform cannot avoid causing significant pain, which is worth enduring to gain extra safety and more exemplary conduct. And only when there is strong public revulsion, such as exists today, can legislators minimize the influence of powerful special interests enough to bring about needed revisions in law.

Speaking of synonyms, “strong public revulsion” is a synonym for “populism”. Through the first two paragraphs, it’s clear that Munger has no interest in the economics of the current recession. Its narrative offends him so we must all act with the force of the government, consequences be damned.

Many contributors to our over-the-top boom, which led to the gross bust, are known. They include insufficient controls over morality and prudence in banks and investment banks; …

Insufficient controls over morality. Does Munger explain this? Of course not, because strong public revulsion covers it. We’re all outraged, so we must Do Something. His something is to increase taxes because it is our duty to “demand at least some increase in conventional taxes or the imposition of some new consumption taxes” to punish ourselves for our immorality.

The rest of the column is an incoherent, crusading mess.

Compare and Contrast

President Obama said the following last night:

“I can’t afford to see Congress play the usual political games. What we have to do right now is deliver for the American people,” Obama said just hours after the legislation narrowly cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate, where it is likely to gain final passage today.

But he can play (not really) unusual political games last week.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Or last month:

… What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

President Obama is a politician. Politicians play political games. That’s no surprise, so back to last night:

“So, you know, we can differ on some of the particulars, but again, the question I think that the American people are asking is: Do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation,” he said. “But doing nothing — that’s not an option, from my perspective.”

If we’re willing to accept the parameters he dictates, then we can talk. Otherwise, we’re cynics to be ignored. I see “change” in where the efforts are directed, not in how they are directed.

Propoganda Beats Flawed Economics

If the communists were capable of reaching for false economic claims when Orwellian information control tactics are available, I’m sure they’d violate Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy to excuse fire destroying a new luxury hotel.

As the sun rose on Tuesday, throngs of Beijing residents flocked to the headquarters of China’s national television network hoping to catch sight of the futuristic steel behemoth that had been consumed by flames the previous night. The blaze, ignited by an errant firework set off on the final night of the lunar new year, destroyed a luxury hotel and theater, left one firefighter dead and injured six others.

Bonus points if you find an example of someone explaining how this will stimulate the Chinese economy because another luxury hotel can be built in its place. The humorous attempt mentioned¹ at the end of the New York Times article doesn’t count.

Lest anyone think that’s the key lesson to pull from this, always remember that China is a communist dictatorship:

A directive sent out by propaganda officials left no room for error: “No photos, no video clips, no in-depth reports,” read the memo, which instructed all media outlets to use only Xinhua’s dispatches. “The news should be put on news areas only and the comments posting areas should be closed.”

Information is king, unless murderous thugs make themselves king instead.

¹ Dear New York Times: The article is on the web. Include the link.

Judge by actions rather than words.

Compare ~~and contrast~~ two articles (all emphasis added). First, coaches removed Buck Burnette from the University of Texas football team:

Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president Tuesday night, Burnette wrote on his Facebook status: “All the hunters gather up, we have a (racial epithet) in the White House.”

Screen captures showed this apology from Burnette before his Facebook page was taken down: “Clearly, I have made a mistake and apologized for it and will pay for it. I received it as a text message from an acquaintance and immaturely put it up on facebook (sic) in the light of the election. Im (sic) not racist and apologize for offending you. I grew up on a ranch in a small town where that was a real thing and I need to grow up. I sincerely am sorry for being ignorant in thinking that it would be ok (sic) to write that publicly and apologize to you in particular… . I have to be more mature than to put the reputation of my team at stake and to spread that kind of hate which I dont (sic) even believe in. Once again, I sincerely apologize.”

Second, Californians explain why they voted to eliminate rights from others:

“I think it’s mainly because of the way we were brought up in the church; we don’t agree with it,” said Jasmine Jones, 25, who is black. “I’m not really the type that I wanted to stop people’s rights. But I still have my beliefs, and if I can vote my beliefs that’s what I’m going to do.

And:

“I don’t discriminate against people,” [Pablo Correa] said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. “I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I’m not against these people.“

He added: “But I’m a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family.”

Buck Burnette is the least despicable of the three people in these two stories because his bigotry was impotent and harmed only himself. But maybe I’m wrong. Jones and Correa aren’t bigots. They said so.

Low Nutritional Value Politics

Last week I saw both of these Tom Toles editorial cartoons, but never together.

And:

The second cartoon, from Friday, is much more effective because it’s correct. The first cartoon, from Tuesday, is full of sentimentality but devoid of truth. (To be fair, we moved closer to truth, although not as much as everyone believes.) The success of California’s Proposition 8 demonstrated that “All men are created equal” isn’t fully realized yet. Maybe it will never be. And there are many issues where our society falls short of the ideal. Denying those because we want some warm, fuzzy feelings for a day is unproductive.

I endorse skepticism.

I’m a huge fan of Penn Jillette. He’s consistently libertarian, as evidenced by his Showtime! series, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Also, his Vegas show with Teller is entertaining. So I read with interest this recent interview he did with reason about the presidential election.

reason: You were critical of the old newsletters that were revealed during the primaries, but on balance was Ron Paul good for libertarians?

Jillette: The basic underlying premise of that question I disagree with. I believe in individual rights so much that I don’t like any sort of “what’s good for the cause”-type question. A little while ago I was at skeptics, atheists conference and a question like that came up. How do we best win people over? As soon as we ask that question, we’re pigs. We have to leave open possibility that other side is right. Even as we call them assholes!

A lot of people listened to Ron Paul and a lot rang true to them. A lot of what he said, I agreed with. But my job professionally, my job as human, my job as an American citizen is not to do what I can to further the libertarian cause. If Obama came out and said “when I’m elected I’d make government as small as I can” I’d really get behind him. I’m not trying to get Libertarians elected. I’m even uncomfortable telling people who to vote for.

I heard Jillette say good things about Ron Paul on the Howard Stern Show too long after Paul’s past racist associations became clear, which I felt was unfortunate. But, yeah, it’s about the ideas. It always will be. I’m interested in liberty first, process second. That comes through here, and it’s the takeaway point.

For example, does this arugment make sense under any skepticism?

And here we see a fundamental difference between the progressive worldview and the conservative worldview. Progressives believe in a robust safety net for everyone. It’s very possible, as we’re seeing, that you’ll experience financial hard times for reasons that have nothing to do with you. A lot of the people doing unskilled service work in the Lehman Brothers office may lose their jobs as a result of this unwinding even though they didn’t do anything wrong. And that sort of thing happens all the time — people get laid off because adverse things happen to the companies they work for. Or people are struck by other kinds of misfortune — they get hit by buses, hurricanes destroy their houses, all kinds of stuff. Misfortune strikes ordinary people, and not just billionaires. And in the case of ordinary people, just as in the case of billionaires, you can offer improve social welfare by helping people out when they wind up in trouble.

But conservatives don’t believe in that kind of safety net for regular people — just for the billionaires. Guaranteed health care? Forget it. Guaranteed retirement income? No way. Just let the market work, and when it stops working the executives will be okay and the rest of us will, oh, something or other.

This is a bit out of date (mid-September), but the flaw is timeless. First, an overwhelming number of Democrats voted for the bailout plan. Do they not count as progressives? Does the claimed need to Do Something outweigh the obvious welfare for the billionaires?

But note how this kind of statement is a nasty simplification that could be rebutted if the accuser – in this case, Matt Yglesias – replaced his assumption with a question directed at the target of his attacks. I’m including myself in his definition of conservative, even though I identify as a libertarian. The comparison is close enough because what he’s attacking is the idea that government shouldn’t be providing X service (i.e. safety net). That’s not what he’s saying, of course. Instead, it’s a veiled “you hate poor/unlucky people because you don’t support my solution”. Any worldview condensed to such inanity is a sad commentary on the believer.

I support a reasonable safety net for the truly incompetent. I’m even willing to consider temporary safety nets for such cases as layoffs, hurricanes¹, or whatever. However, those are questions of how to effectively resolve the problems with minimal interference (i.e. taxation, regulations). I don’t think widespread government-provided safety nets are the universal solution. We can agree that not having mass numbers of people living in the streets is worth achieving. It does not flow from there to the implication that those who disagree on how to achieve the goal are selfish degenerates who want babies to die in the streets.

Stretched back to the context of Penn Jillette’s statement above, I can vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, but I’m not saying I think the Libertarian Party is the only, or best, way to achieve liberty. Like he said, if Obama stands up tomorrow and proposes a policy that enhances liberty, I will support it. It’s the principle, not the policy. All of politics is the same idea.

¹ It’s not too much to expect, in return, for the government to stop incentivizing stupid, risky behavior. This applies more to building homes in flood plains, I suppose, but it’s applicability to hurricanes is almost the same. Also, financial risks. Don’t encourage bad luck and then expect me to pay those who embraced it.

I voted (on Saturday).

Since I commute a reasonable distance to/from work, I took advantage of early voting on Saturday. I waited in line approximately 75 minutes, which was very close to my limit, given the choices before me. It helped that the sun filled the evening sky and the temperature hadn’t dropped. I had one point of indecision going in, although I had a strong inclination how I planned to vote. Without further buildup:

President: Bob Barr (Libertarian)

Senate: William Redpath (Libertarian)

House: Myself (libertarian)

I realized several years ago that I could never vote for Sen. McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 Republican primary, a vote I stand behind because I think President John McCain circa 2000 would’ve been better than President George W. Bush. I even advocated for a Kerry/McCain ticket in 2004. (I no longer stand behind that opinion.) But I’ve lost all respect for John McCain because I’ve finally seen the politician rather than the marketing campaign. Acknowledging his military career and sacrifice does not require me to assume those equal competent civilian leadership skills. So, he was never under consideration.

I considered Sen. Obama after initially rejecting any possibility of that. I might’ve been able to cast a vote for him if he hadn’t shifted from bad economics to insane economics as he sought to wrap up the nomination. Maybe he’ll cast that idiocy aside. I’m not confident of that.

In recent months I considered voting for Sen. Obama as a vote against the probable Supreme Court nominations from a President McCain. With the choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate, McCain forfeited any benefit of the doubt about his calm, reasoned approach to judicial nominations. As the polls suggested the race was still close, I thought I might have to vote Obama against my preference.

In finally deciding, I disregarded any consideration of polls, although I’m aware of them. Sen. Obama’s recent pandering on all matters of the economy made a vote for him impossible. I fear he actually believes the insanity he’s spewing. Civil liberties matter, but economic liberties matter, too. I can’t endorse a race from one brink to another.

My vote for Barr does not imply that I support him. Okay, so it does imply that. I considered that and decided the benefit offset that problem.

I do not think Barr is a libertarian. After reading this reason interview with Barr, I’m convinced he’s learned the language. I perceived his answers to be forced. He knows what to say and when, but he doesn’t necessarily believe them. Maybe that his personality interfering. Maybe he is a libertarian. It doesn’t matter because he won’t win. I voted to signal “libertarian” and to encourage continued ballot access. (The matching funds, I could do without.)

For Senate I couldn’t endorse former Gov. Jim Gilmore. He’s a rabid social conservative. Also, as evidenced by his nonsensical “abolition” of property taxes on automobiles, he has no sense of responsible or limited government. If I care about reducing taxation, I’m not fooled that you shift taxation from counties to the state.

I couldn’t vote for former Gov. Mark Warner, either. Either he’s pandering in matching Democratic nonsense on economics or he really believes his policy proposals. I find the latter hard to believe since he built a large business. Regardless, I don’t want to find out. And I’m not voting to increase the Democratic majority in the Senate.

When I began researching this year’s election, I realized Virginia had a Libertarian running for the Senate. I expected to be disappointed and perhaps embarrassed. (Think Michael Badnarik.) Then I read through William Redpath’s campaign site. Anyone who repeatedly references the Cato Institute probably has the right idea. Redpath has no chance of winning, of course, so it’s a no-risk vote in that sense. But anyone willing to push for the Flat Tax and not wrap it around social conservatism (i.e. Steve Forbes) receives the benefit of the doubt. I made this choice readily.

For the House (Virginia’s 11th District) the same logic applies for the Democrat (Gerry Connolly) and Republican (Keith Fimian), although the only third party candidate represented the Independent Green party. No thanks to that. Here I almost voted Republican to push for an offset of Democratic gains. But Mr. Fimian’s campaign site offered only the vaguest rhetoric, with no actual governing principles. Since even a useless blowhard like outgoing Rep. Tom Davis could hold the 11th District for more than a decade, I decided against a vote for any future incumbent¹. So I voted for myself as a write-in candidate. Keep your fingers crossed on my chances.

There are no ballot initiatives or bonds to vote on this year, so that’s it. I would’ve voted “no” to any bonds or taxes, “no” to any further theft of rights, and “yes” to any further protection or expansion of rights.

Further election thoughts at A Stitch in Haste, Postive Liberty, no third solution, and Freespace.

¹ If I should win the 11th District, this logic does not apply to future incumbents. Naturally.